Full Mission Simulators (FMS) are excellent; however, some deficiencies were noted with minor impacts on training.

The Full Mission Simulator (FMS) environment, including the contractor instructors and instructor workstations, was effective in training the students in the syllabus events and preparing them for flight, although correction of minor deficiencies would improve training effectiveness. Comments from the pilots and observations indicated that the simulator was an excellent training device, with higher fidelity than simulators used for training in legacy fighter aircraft. One of the four primary student pilots stated that it was “one of the best parts of the whole program.” However, the following three issues with the simulator training were identified by the student pilots, which adversely affected the effectiveness of the simulator.

- Student pilots identified deficiencies in the helmet used in the simulator (which is different than the helmet issued to pilots for the aircraft). The simulator uses a functional surrogate of the helmet used in the aircraft, which is not fit uniquely to each pilot’s head. Problems included fit (too tight), improper optical alignment of the helmet-mounted display information, blurry presentations, and excessive weight. Student pilots reported that the helmet caused headaches due to the poor alignment. Some of the student pilots used only one of the two optical sights (monocles) to avoid blurry or double vision.

- Simulation stability was also a deficiency, although the disruption to training was usually minimal. Most of the simulator training sessions involved emergency procedures to be “programmed in” to the flight profile and then handled by the student pilot to an acceptable conclusion. After addressing the emergency procedures, the contractor instructor pilot would reset the simulator to a normal configuration to continue the training event. The process of resetting the simulator did not always work effectively, and required repeated attempts on multiple occasions. The time spent resetting the simulator detracted from the effective training time and interrupted the logical training flow during some of the simulator sessions. One on occasion, however, the disruptions and resets resulted in the simulator training session being terminated and not effective (1 of 88 during the OUE period). The simulator event had to be rescheduled.

- Concerning the accuracy of the FSD to meet the execution of the simulator syllabus events, all student pilots rated the FSD as “Not Totally Adequate” for at least a portion of the simulator events. Pilots identified errors between the FSD, the pilot’s checklist, and annunciations of emergency conditions in the simulator. The JSF Operational Test Team (JOTT) submitted identified shortfalls in the FSD in deficiency reports to the JSF Program Office (JPO).

[Flight Series Data (FSD) publications and pilot checklists]

During end-of-course interviews, each student pilot stated that the simulators adequately prepared them for the flying training portion of the syllabus...."

Perhaps the first post above could have been tacked on there but anyway here is some info with the JPG missing because it was not uploaded directly but only hotlinked BAHhumbug I'll post the pic soonish: [Anyways youse'll see the HeathenRobboContraption Atop Pilot head to see what is worn in the FMS instead of the HMDS II]

"..."The simulators are our real success story," said Lt. Col. William Betts, 33rd Operations Support Squadron commander who has been on the initial cadre team since 2009. "It's refreshing to hear others say it is just like flying the F-35 (once they complete the first flight)."

Bishop echoed the same high fidelity of the full mission simulator here and said there is no comparison, especially when remembering his experience learning to fly the Strike Eagle.

"During my transition to F-15E, the simulator was like a black and white T.V. screen hooked up to a cockpit," he said. "It shows how far we've come in (pilot) training. It's humbling for me to be around this world class environment."..."

“The simulator is very good,” said Capt. John Enfield, commanding officer of the Navy’s F-35C fleet readiness squadron Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101. “Given the advanced capabilities that this aircraft brings to the fight, there are a lot of things that are best trained in the simulator anyway. From a basic flying skills standpoint it’s great, and from an advanced combat standpoint it is light years ahead of anything we’ve seen previously.”

Enfield briefed reporters in a June 24 teleconference at the squadron’s home at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., along Lt. Cmdr. Chris Tabert, a former F-35C developmental test pilot and currently the only qualified F-35C pilot in the squadron, and Capt. Paul Haas, vice commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin.

Tabert flew the first production F-35C, designated CF-06, from the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, to Eglin on June 22. The aircraft is one of the Low-Rate Initial Production 4 aircraft and is equipped with Block 2A software.

“The simulator here is unlike any simulator I’ve flown before,” Tabert said. “It’s high fidelity. All the tasks that are required to safely operate the aircraft can be done in the simulator. It’s very close to how the airplane actually flies. You have full 360-degree views. You can tank [aerial refuel] in it. We won’t have an issue training pilots predominantly in the simulator and having less time in the airplane.”

VFA-101 will be equipped with 15 F-35Cs within 18 to 24 months, with six or seven expected to be on strength by the end of this year. The first four F-35Cs assigned to the squadron eventually will participate in the aircraft’s Operational Test, according to Enfield. They already are equipped with wiring for the instrumentation required for the tests.

Four VFA-101 future instructor pilots have completed the F-35C academic and simulator syllabi and will begin flights in the F-35C as early as August, Enfield said. Four more F-35C pilots are in academic and simulator training.

VFA-101 also will train Marine Corps pilots in the F-35C beginning in 2015 or 2016.

VFA-101 eventually will take pilots to carrier qualifications after the new design of an F-35C tailhook is cleared for service. The hook will be tested by developmental test pilots in carrier landings next summer. Tabert said VFA-101 expects to begin carrier qualifications in mid-to-late 2015."

"ORLANDO, Florida—F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin says it has reduced the cost of the “full-mission simulator” used to train pilots on the fifth-generation fighter by 25%, or $3 million, per simulator since 2012....

...The manufacturer reported on the status of the F-35 simulator produced by its Orlando-based Training and Logistics Solutions (TLS) business on Nov. 27 during the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference here. Also briefed was the status of the fighter’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which captures and analyzes aircraft condition data to support maintenance, fault-prediction and supply chain management of parts. The simulator has a 360-deg. visual display system and can be reconfigured for each of the three F-35 variants. Pilots complete roughly half of initial qualification flights in the device, Lockheed Martin says.

By 2020, Lockheed Martin expects to have delivered 100 F-35 simulators to U.S. military services and partner nations. During this time, it will also invest $30 million to modernize the F-35 virtual training environment based on emerging threats and drive concurrency between the training system and F-35 capability, said Amy Gowder, TLS vice president and general manager.

Next year will see F-35 Block 4 training system upgrades and the first networked simulators allowing for distributed mission training scenarios involving the F-35, the F-22 and fourth-generation fighters, she added.

Lockheed Martin is currently deploying ALIS version 3.0 software, which makes the system more user friendly for maintainers. An ALIS 3.1 release enables sovereign data management, allowing F-35 partner nations to protect certain information, such as pilot names."

"ORLANDO, Fla. — Lockheed Martin is reducing the price of the F-35 joint strike fighter’s full mission simulators by utilizing technologies such as additive manufacturing....

...“Just this year we've … been implementing additive manufacturing and some improved production techniques,” said Amy Gowder, Lockheed’s vice president and general manager for training and logistics solutions’ division. “We're taking 25 percent of the cost out of the simulator.”

The effort — which includes 3D printing of the simulator’s cockpits ­— is projected to save $11 million over the next five years, the company noted. It will reduce components necessary for the cockpit from 800 parts to five, a Lockheed spokesperson said....

...driving concurrency between the training system and the F-35 aircraft, she said. “Concurrency with the aircraft is one need I see across all my platforms and all my programs,” she said. “The capabilities are evolving more rapidly and deploying them through agile methods to the aircraft [is necessary]. … The trainer needs to stay in sync so that you can train as soon as the capabilities are ready.”

The simulators will also be upgraded with a new virtual training environment that is based on emerging threats, Gowder added.... Software upgrades can take as little as a week, she said. Hardware adjustment timelines will be dependent on individual countries schedules and desire to retrofit systems, she added.

Lockheed is also adding capability throughout 2019 including the initial distributed mission training, or DMT, capability and software block 4 training system upgrades. The DMT will allow the military to “link an F-35 with an F-22 or other fourth-gen fighters in a simulated environment with the trainers fighting together,” Gowder said."